Double blinding in peer review: is it worth the hype?

Description

INTRODUCTION
Without a doubt, peer review is the measuring stick by
which science is judged. Peer review is a longstanding tradition
in academic circles as the standard practice for evaluating articles
for publication, grants and academic promotions. The term itself
conjures up certain connotations and mixed emotions. Knowing
that a body of work has successfully gone through peer review
immediately increases credibility and, although academics would
be hesitant to confess, it is too frequently unquestioned. A recent
article by John Bohannon in Science tells the story of how his
bogus paper full of glaring fatal flaws was accepted by an astonishing
157 out of 255 open-access “peer reviewed” journals [1],
casting doubt on the level of scrutiny from journals claiming to
perform peer review. Perhaps it is time to cast aside our blind
faith and understand the limitations of peer review.